[Ben Holmes]

(08-31-2016, 11:42 AM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(08-29-2016, 05:42 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Ditto with Oswald's marksmanship... it was incredibly poorer than the three marksmen used to attempt to duplicate their scenario by the Warren Commission - yet they couldn't do the job, despite their many advantages (quite dishonest advantages given to them by the Warren Commission)

You are obviously talking about three shots in less than 6 seconds which for the nth time is almost certainly NOT what happened on 22 Nov.

Oswald got off TWO shots in 5.2 seconds approx and they both hit at approx 65 and 88 yards. This is NOT remarkable shooting and easily within the capabilities of expert marksmen such as those using Oswald's actual MC.

You are kidding yourself yet again.

AND....you have no idead if he used the scope which if he did not, means that the misalignment of the scope is irrelevant!

Cherry picking again...

You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to defend a two shot scenario when it conflicts with the Warren Commission... for example, you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to tell everyone which two shells went to the FBI on 11/22/63... you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to admit that critics have been right for decades on CE543.

This appears to be quite hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

Now, back to the topic you avoided...

Here it is again:

Quote:What other bullets did or did not do has nothing to do with CE399. It's actions and condition is unrelated to any other bullets. It is entirely possible that it could inflict the wounds that it did and remain in the condition that it is in because that is what it did. Just as Oswald's marksmanship as tested by the Marines is unrelated. On that day, in that place, he was a good enough marksman to make the shot. The proof that he could do it is that HE DID, and the conspiracy nitwits cannot name another shooter, afte 50 years and over 10000 posts on this forum, alone.

Now tell us Patrick... is this 'Begging the Question' or not?